Officers' Quarters: How do we govern? Part 2

Every Monday Scott Andrews contributes Officers' Quarters, a column about the ins and outs of guild leadership.
If you're just tuning in, last week I discussed how running a guild is much like running a country -- or an empire. In the previous column, I covered the dictatorship, the constitutional monarchy, and the democratic republic. This week, we'll talk about three others that aren't quite so conventional.
Khanate
Genghis Khan, ruler of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century, could kick my butt -- and he could kick all of your butts too. If there's one thing he knew how to do, it was kick butt. He kicked it all the way across Eurasia, founding an insanely massive empire. And he didn't do it with fancy gifts or diplomacy. He did it with ruthless, bloodthirsty conquest. No offense to Genghis -- the guy was actually pretty darn smart, too. And you might even be related to him. But let's face it: All the smarts in the world don't build an empire without a little butt-kicking from time to time.
Although a khanate in the historical sense isn't much different from a dictatorship, I'm using the term here to denote an aggressive, expansionist dictatorship. This type of government is all about "winner take all." It's about never being satisfied with what you have, but grabbing every piece of territory you can and spilling the blood and guts of its residents all over it. Barbaric? Yes. Effective? Well, that all depends on how much butt you kick.
Pros: The khan answers to no one; the khan takes what he or she wants, without pity or remorse; Khaaaaaaaaaaaan!
Cons: You're not going to be very popular with other world leaders; bloodstains are difficult to scrub out
In Warcraft, running this type of guild isn't entirely possible. Someday there will be a game like that, and it will rule. But, with the consent of your guildmates and a few other guilds on your server, you can have a khanate of your very own. Just take everyone in your guild who wants to be in charge to one of the arenas (the world arenas, not the gladiator arenas), and duke it out. The last man or woman standing is the new GL. Then, take your entire guild and meet someone else's guild in the arena. Assuming you win, your guild gets the spoils of the other guild's bank. All of the losing guild's members can either join you or be "killed" -- i.e., leave the server forever.
It's harsh, it's high stakes, and it's not for the faint of heart. No one would be crazy enough to do this, would they? Perhaps not, but doesn't it sound like a heck of a lot of fun? (At least, if you win . . .)
Oligarchy
I know, I know. Another column, another fancy word. Someone named "Chris" actually used it in the comments to Part 1, so I know I'm not the only one out there with words like this stuck in my head. Chris, I'd give you credit for the idea, but I already had this part written before the first column went live, so you just get props for knowing the word instead.
Anyway, "oligarchy" is from Greek, and means "rule by the few." This style of government is similar to a dictatorship, but rather than consolidating power in an individual, it is done by a ruling elite. One of the most famous examples of an oligarchy is Sparta. What's Sparta? Say it with me: THIS IS SPARTA! (And no, this one is not a YouTube link -- read it and learn something.) Spartan kings were mainly field generals. True power lay with the elected ephors and a ruling council called the "gerousia." Members of these bodies came only from Sparta's aristocratic families. Ordinary citizens were property owned by the state.
Pros: System of checks and balances like modern democracies; differing opinions may lead to compromise; it works for the Klingons
Cons: Limited pool from which to draw leaders; no single leader to solve disputes; may have to fight giant mutants and/or Persian mercenaries on rhinos
Ever heard of guilds who appoint their bank toon as the guild leader? I'd consider those an oligarchy, especially if their officers are unelected or elected from a very exclusive pool of candidates. This style is a great option for those guilds who don't feel the need to have a single guiding personality and can come to decisions as a group. A lot of guilds who actually have a GL and an officer corps are run more like oligarchies, with the GL -- much like the position of the American vice president -- existing mainly to break tie votes. From a certain standpoint, the concept is very appealing. Does anyone really want to be the sole individual bearing the heavy burden of an entire guild's success or failure on one's shoulders? I guess some do, but it can be better to share.
Anarchy
Anarchy is rather self-explanatory: Nobody is calling the shots; no one is making laws, or enforcing them, or even thinking about them all that much. It's not a state of affairs that tends to last very long. Sooner or later someone like Genghis comes along and sets up shop, or people decide they've had enough and start putting the pieces of society back together again. A state of anarchy typically occurs when a government is violently overthrown by individuals who don't particularly want to rule in that government's stead -- they just didn't want those jerks telling them what to do anymore.
Pros: No taxes, jury duty, or census forms; download all the copyrighted material your hard drive can handle
Cons: No social services, national defense, or public transportation, and very few, if any, restrictions about the amount of fecal matter in restaurant food
How can we create a state of anarchy in a guild? It's very easy, actually.
Step 1: Log in around 4 a.m.
Step 2: Promote every. single. member. to officer-level status with the power to invite or kick out anyone else.
Step 3: Delete all other ranks.
Step 4: Go play Minesweeper for a week.
Voila -- anarchy! Log in and report on the mayhem for WoW Insider's Guildwatch column.
There are plenty of other ways to run a guild based on historical or current governments. Some are feasible and realistic; others, not so much. But it's interesting to think about the many methods you could employ. Have any of you intentionally run a guild similar to a real-world government? Tell us about it below!
/salute
Send Scott your guild-related questions, conundrums, ideas, and suggestions at scott.andrews@weblogsinc.com. You may find your question the subject of next week's Officers' Quarters!
Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tolthalan Aug 27th 2007 11:12AM
So is this informative in any way? Or just the writer thinking about guild setups that would be interesting?
John Aug 27th 2007 11:14AM
I like the idea of creating an anarchy guild. I have a feeling you come back in a week and it wouldn't exist anymore at all.
Hory Aug 27th 2007 11:21AM
@1 I believe you just gave us the definition of a blog. It's about ideas and thoughts being expressed. These guys just happen to get paid for it.
If you don't like it... write your own f-ing blog.
Valethas Aug 27th 2007 11:24AM
Hmmmm Didn't you forget a Statist guild? (pronounced state-ist) where everyone does what they do for the benefit of the guild and the Guild comes before self interest. Or would this be a tad bit linked under Dictatorship?
Anyway the Guild I'm in we have a Oligarchy type of Guild we have a group of officers and GL (also a Sub GL since the other GL works alot) and we vote on what shall be done. Also we have Guild Alliances because we are an Ud only guild.
John Aug 27th 2007 12:13PM
Wow...after last week I expected this to be interesting or informative. Disapointed that I was denyed on both counts. I was actually looking forward to this post...but man, what a waste of time.
Tolthalan Aug 27th 2007 11:37AM
@3 I understand that, but this is a feature on Guild Leadership, and this week it doesn't seem to have any information on Guild Leadership at all. It just strikes me that the writer is stalling till he thinks of something to write about.
Milktub Aug 27th 2007 11:48AM
@1 -- I think this post was more a toss of of fun guild leadership ideas. Last week was the informative one, since it had guild leadership ideas that actually work. Though I suppose in this post, Oligarchy has potential.
I'm quite interested to see what happens with Anarchy.
Currently, my WoW monkeyshines involve attempting to bribe members of highly progressed guilds to "throw the match" and repeatedly wipe the raid on purpose. Guildwatch drama ftw!
Mel Aug 27th 2007 12:53PM
Thanks for the Sparta link! I am a history geek. :)
I think the Oligarchy setup actually works fine. At least it does for the guild I am a member of.
Queuetip Aug 27th 2007 1:41PM
Great article! Especially the whole Khanate section. It got me laughing.
@haters - Get out of here.
Rob Aug 27th 2007 3:10PM
@4 that's also called Fascist. Hard to see that actually working in real life, since there are zero perks to being part of such a guild. One problem is that guilds tend to be uneven with power-sharing and loot sharing. Its just hard to do in the current setup. Maybe patch 2.3 with guild banks will give guilds a huge shot in the arm.
Coherent Aug 27th 2007 5:06PM
Your Khanate government is entirely possible and feasable. See EVE Online.
Also, about Anarchy: The very first guild member to log in would demote everybody else to "Peon" leaving himself at the top. This is pretty much what happens in RL anarchies too. The quickest and the strongest make blatant grabs for power. Everyone else goes squish.
Chris Aug 28th 2007 11:58AM
Another great article Scott - thanks for the shout-out. :)
PyroAmos Aug 28th 2007 1:23PM
i like calling it High Council run, rather than Oligarchy, since not many people know big words, but it is defiantly the way to go IMO... 1 leader is asking for trouble, and organizing a democracy and shifting leadership is complicated and unnessisary. I've never seen a democracy 'til you printed the letter on last weeks page, but i have seen many high council run guilds, they tend to be much more stable than guild master run guilds (whatever you call it, its still the same thing)
Theserene Aug 28th 2007 2:04PM
Downside of running a guild though is having to deal with the drama.
However when you have strong fair leadership it will work out okay. We recently kicked two people out of our guild but because the leadership all explained why that decision had been made the rest accepted it.
If we'd said nothing or simply said it was our right to do so, we probably would have had a lot of people leave. Which is what people can do if they don't like guild management, it's a little harder when it's a country.
Charlie Aug 29th 2007 1:28AM
our guild runs under what you would call an oligarchy. Our GM has his bank toon as the GM, and all his alts are the "Assistant GM", then there are officers.
He tries as much as he can to let the officers do all the work. Smart? Yeah. Is he lazy? Probobly, but it gets the job done =D.
And hey, If I was in his shoes, I'd do the same thing. I mean, do you really want to be the only oen who can handle the 8 billion things a guild needs done in a day?
Fishy Oct 15th 2007 7:23AM
Very interesting article, both parts that is. And while "Scott" may have beaten me with the whole Oligarchy thing, this is exactly what we chose as principle for our fairly new (few months into BC) guild.
Prior to that we've seen it all. Democracy didn't work, Louis XIV.-Dictatorship (http://history-world.org/louis_xiv.htm) failed, so we chose the Spartan way as our own.
Our actual GM is our bankalt, it's on my account, but that just coincidental and doesn't give me any special privileges. We are consider ourselves as "council of elders", as you so well put it - even though I don't consider myself old - and are a handful (read: eight) officers governing our raid guild. We do not utilize classleaders although this has been discussed, but didn't not seem feasible to us.
Every officer puts his/her effort into acting on behalf of the "people", thus following the democratic principle in some way, while our officers on the other hand are not elected by the guild. There descisions among others are voted upon within the "council".
This way of leadership has in my opinion proven to be best option, ymmv of course. We serve our guild and they in turn respect our work and back us up. Win/win situation.
P.S. Great column btw. I really enjoy reading it.
P.P.S. Mind you, I'm not a native english speaker, so please excuse any mistakes I might have made.